Floor Statements

Mr. President, on April 19, CNN published a guest column by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, ``An unprecedented step on human rights.'' At a time when

President Trump has praised Egypt's President el-Sisi and Turkey's President Erdogan, both of whom are responsible for brutal crackdowns on dissent and for subverting the institutions of democracy, and after the White House lifted human rights restrictions on the sale of military equipment to Bahrain and Secretary of State Tillerson did not participate in the public release of the Department's Annual Report on Human Rights Practices, Ambassador Haley's op-ed is welcome.

In it, she made several statements that I think bear repeating. For example, she said: ``[W]idespread human rights violations are a warning sign--a loud, blaring siren--that a breakdown in peace and security is coming.''

``[T]here is hardly an issue on the agenda of the Security Council that does not in some way involve human rights.''

``The next international crisis could very well come from places in which human rights are widely disregarded . . . we know from history that it will happen. And when it does, the United Nations will be called upon to act. We are much better off acting before abuse turns to conflict.''

I strongly agree with all of that and commend her for saying it.

Ambassador Haley singled out several countries, including Syria, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba, where violations of human rights--although of different types and on vastly different scales--are common.

A few days later, Secretary Tillerson rightly criticized the government of Venezuelan President Maduro, who has locked up his political opponents and sought to decapitate what remains of the institutions of democracy in that country.

It is not sufficient, however, as some in this administration have been doing, to defend human rights only in countries whose governments are regarded as adversaries of the United States. That is the politically safe approach, and it weakens the credibility of those who seek to defend human rights.

It is important to note that the governments of a number of U.S. allies, such as Egypt, the Philippines, Turkey, Ethiopia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, also routinely violate human rights by arresting and imprisoning dissidents, independent journalists, and members of organizations who peacefully protest against government policies.

In the Philippines, anyone suspected of using or selling drugs is in danger of summary execution by the police. Thousands have been killed with impunity in the past 9 months. In Honduras, scores of journalists and environmental activists have been assassinated, and rarely is anyone arrested or punished. In Colombia, thousands of social activists and human rights defenders have been killed, many of them victims of the security forces and rightwing armed groups, and few people have been held accountable. There are many other examples.

I hope Ambassador Haley's statement is a sign that human rights will become a visible and consistent focus of the Trump administration's foreign policy. Freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, and due process--these are all rights and ideals that Americans cherish. They are also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the world's oldest democracy, we have a responsibility, and it is in our interest to defend them wherever they are violated because protecting fundamental rights is necessary, not only for justice and the rule of law, but, as Ambassador Haley points out, for global peace and security, including America's security.

I ask unanimous consent that Ambassador Haley's guest column be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to express my serious concerns with the budget for fiscal year 2018 recently proposed by President Trump. If adopted, this budget would have severe consequences on many Americans, but I am particularly concerned that it would be low-income families who are impacted the most. As vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will do everything in my power to make sure that does not happen.

Among countless examples within a budget that is out of touch and that will drive more American families into poverty, the President's proposal to eliminate the Community Service Block Grant, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, and the Weatherization Assistance Program should be concerning to all of us. These are resources that are essential not only to Vermonters, but to millions of families throughout the country.

The Community Service Block Grant ensures that low-income families receive the support they need for basic food and housing assistance, financial planning tools, and fuel in winter months. LIHEAP and weatherization services ensure that families do not have to choose between food and heat. They ensure that families stay safe from harmful asbestos that may be in the walls of their old Vermont farmhouses or their inefficient mobile homes. In States like mine, home heating is a life-and-death matter.

We need to show compassion when drafting our budget and provide support for those programs that help hard-working families in need. We must see the faces behind these proposed budget cuts. Vulnerable people should never be at the whim of politically driven priorities.

We have to do better. I would like to begin by recognizing the crisis so many families will face in this country without the help of our community action agencies. Without them, families will go cold. They will choose not to eat so they can heat their homes. They will deny themselves healthcare and miss rent payments so that they can stay warm, so that they can stay alive.

Last month, I had the pleasure of seeing a longtime friend and fellow Vermonter Jan Demers, who serves as the executive director of the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, CVOEO, Vermont's largest community action agency in Burlington. It was Jan who said it best, noting that, ``President Trump's budget is like one amputation after another. Not bringing health to the community but cut after cut-- loss after loss.'' I am proud that CVOEO and the other community action agencies continue to meet the needs of these families and hope all Senators will continue to support them as I have during my time in the Senate.

In recognition of their leadership, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Jan Demers be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this week, Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is in Washington where he is meeting with President Trump and other senior administration officials, as well as some Members of Congress.

President Trump has spoken glowingly of President el-Sisi, as he has of Russian President Putin and Philippine President Duterte. ``Strong leaders,'' he calls them, as if that is enough to justify our wholehearted support. Unfortunately, world history is replete with examples of strong, messianic leaders who abused their power in ways that caused immense hardship for their people and divisiveness and conflict in their countries.

Despite that, the White House has voiced its strong support for President el-Sisi, and for U.S.-Egyptian relations.

I have been to Egypt many times, and I have voted for billions of dollars in U.S. aid for Egypt to support economic and security programs in that country. I have recognized positive developments in Egypt when they occur, such as President el-Sisi's decision to undertake economic reforms, including by reducing some subsidies. Far more needs to be done, however, if Egypt's economy is to break free of decades of state control, endemic corruption, and gross mismanagement.

I am also aware of the security threats Egypt faces in Libya and in the Sinai, although I and others have expressed deep concern with the flawed tactics the Egyptian Government is using to combat those threats. The U.S. has an interest in helping Egypt confront these challenges by addressing the underlying causes in a manner that is effective and consistent with international law.

President Trump has called President el-Sisi a fantastic guy. Ironically, that says a lot more about President Trump than it does about President el-Sisi.

President el-Sisi, a former general who seized power by force, has ruled with an iron fist. He has effectively banned public criticism of his government since the removal of former President Morsi, enforcing what amounts to a prohibition on protests and arresting hundreds of people in connection with the ban, many preemptively.

President el-Sisi's government has engaged in one of the widest arrest campaigns in the country's modern history, targeting a broad spectrum of political opponents. Local civil society organizations estimate that between 40,000 and 60,000 people are detained on political grounds, such as for protesting or calling for a change in government. Police have accused many of having links to the Muslim Brotherhood, usually without evidence that they have advocated or engaged in violence. Many other detainees belong to other political organizations or have no party affiliation.

A systematic crackdown on Egypt's independent civil society has left it on the verge of collapse. According to human rights groups, nearly every prominent Egyptian human rights defender or civil society leader is banned

from leaving the country as part of a judicial investigation into the foreign funding of their organizations. A law signed by President el- Sisi in 2014 would allow prosecutors to seek 25-year sentences for illegally receiving foreign funding. Parliament has also proposed a new law regulating civil society organizations which, if adopted, would effectively outlaw independent human rights work in the country.

Despite repeated requests by U.S. officials, including some Republicans and Democrats in Congress, President el-Sisi's government has refused to release those detained for political reasons for months or years without charge or on trumped up charges like Egyptian-American citizen Aya Hijazi.

The media has also been targeted, with authorities threatening and jailing journalists who reported on political opposition. Some foreign journalists have been barred from the country after writing articles critical of the government. As of December 2016, Egypt was the third- highest jailer of journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. This pattern of harassment and arrests is not new. It has been happening for years, and, contrary to the representations of Egyptian officials, it is getting worse.

According to Human Rights Watch, members of the security forces, particularly the Interior Ministry's National Security Agency, routinely torture detainees to elicit confessions. This torture usually occurs during periods of enforced disappearance that can last for weeks or months. The widespread use of torture has also been reported by the State Department. Despite hundreds of reported cases of torture and enforced disappearance, since 2013, only a handful of police officers have reportedly been punished for violating the law.

According to information I have received, prison conditions remain deplorable, and political detainees are beaten, often deprived of contact with relatives and lawyers, and denied access to medical care.

The government's use of U.S. aircraft and other military equipment in its counterterrorism campaign against a local ISIS affiliate in the northern Sinai has not only resulted in indiscriminate attacks against civilians and other gross violations of human rights, it has made the terrorism situation worse. Requests by myself, as well as State and Defense Department officials and by independent journalists and representatives of human rights groups, for access to conflicted areas, have been denied.

While President Trump and other U.S. officials unabashedly praise President el-Sisi, I wonder how they reconcile their portrayal of him with his crackdown against civil society and brutal repression of dissent. In fact, it can't be reconciled, and it damages our own credibility as a strong defender of human rights and democratic principles.

I want to reiterate what I said in this Chamber on September 27, 2016, when I spoke about Aya Hijazi, the young Egyptian American social worker currently detained in Egypt. Ms. Hijazi, along with her Egyptian husband and five employees of their organization Belady, has been accused of salacious crimes that the government has yet to corroborate with any credible evidence; yet she has been jailed since May 21, 2014. Just last month, a decision in her case was inexplicably delayed until later this month. It is long past time for her ordeal to end.

The United States and Egypt have common interests in an increasingly troubled region. Egypt has acted to reduce the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, and it has helped to broker ceasefires with Hamas. Our support for Egypt is demonstrated by the fact that, over the past 70 years, U.S. taxpayers have provided more than $70 billion in economic and military aid to Egypt. I doubt that many Egyptians know that, as most have a decidedly unfavorable opinion of the United States.

After three decades of corrupt autocratic rule by former President Mubarak, Egypt once again has a former military officer as President who has chosen to rule by force. It is neither justified, nor is it necessary. If, on the contrary, President el-Sisi were to demonstrate that he has a credible plan for transforming Egypt's economy, for improving education and creating jobs, for respecting due process and other fundamental rights, and for addressing the discrimination and lack of economic opportunities that are at the root of the violence in the Sinai, the Egyptian people would support him. They would also have a brighter future. Instead, I fear that, by relying on repression, he is sowing the seeds of misery and civil unrest, which is in the interest of neither the Egyptian people nor the American people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I do not see anybody on the floor, but I understand that this time has been reserved for the Republican side.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first I wish to commend the senior Senator from Washington State for her terrific statement.

I know, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, that we reported the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch by the narrowest margin--a party-line vote. The majority leader then filed cloture to cut off debate on this nominee. He has shown that he will use whatever tactic is necessary to ensure this nominee is confirmed, no matter the concern of Senators or millions of other Americans.

Today is just the 75th day of the Trump administration. After only 75 days of having a Republican-controlled White House and Congress, the Republican leader has promised to vitiate the historic rights of the minority in this institution. He is prepared to abdicate the Senate's constitutional duty to serve as a check on the President and our responsibility to protect the independence of the Federal judiciary, all in the service of Donald Trump's agenda and because, as we know, Donald Trump asked him to.

Senate Republicans seek to justify their tactics by claiming that Democrats would do no different were the shoe on the other foot. They are free to make that argument, but it is wrong. There is one claim in particular that I need to address. Some Republicans have asserted that, if President Bush had made a Supreme Court nomination in 2008, the final year of his term, Democrats would have pocket filibustered that nomination the same way that Senate Republicans did to Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Well, I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee during that time, and I can assure them that they are wrong. Democrats did not invent an election year exception to the Constitution. Look no further than when a Democratic-led Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy during a Presidential election year.

If President Bush had made a Supreme Court nomination in 2008, that nominee would have had a hearing, and all Senators would have had the opportunity to debate that nomination on the floor. As Senator Hatch and I wrote in 2001, ``The Judiciary Committee's traditional practice has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the Committee has completed its consideration. This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee.'' This Senator would not have disregarded precedent and constitutional obligation because of partisan politics. Whether such a nominee would have been confirmed would have depended on his or her views, but the nominee would have been given a fair process, which Senate Republicans denied Chief Judge Garland when they pocket filibustered him.

My record in 2008 shows that I treated President Bush's nominees fairly. We confirmed 28 circuit and district nominees in 2008, including 10 in 1 day, just weeks before the election, and reduced the number of judicial vacancies to just 34. Compare that to 2016, when Senate Republicans allowed just nine circuit and district nominees to be confirmed in total. That is less than 33 percent of the 2008 number. Moreover, Republicans' pocket filibusters, even for nominees supported by home State Republican Senators, allowed the number of judicial vacancies to skyrocket over 100. Of course, they had done the same thing at the end of the Clinton administration, pocket filibustering more than 60 nominees. Those are the facts. Anyone who claims that judicial nominees were never obstructed before 2001 has conveniently forgotten those facts.

When Senate Democrats changed the cloture rule for lower court nominations in 2013, we did so reluctantly and only after Senate Republicans repeatedly abused Senate rules to wage in unparalleled obstruction of President Obama's nominees over a period of years. By November 2013, the Republican leader had orchestrated an unprecedented number of filibusters, including requiring cloture motions on 34 circuit and district nominees in less than 5 years--compared to 18 nominees who faced cloture motions during the entire 8-year tenure of President Bush.

When it comes to judicial nominations, the filibuster has been a tool to protect the independence of our courts by compelling Presidents to find mainstream, consensus nominees who do not bring an agenda with their lifetime appointments to our courts. Senate Democrats filibustered a small number of President George W. Bush's nominees, but it was not because they were conservative, or had been nominated by a Republican President. It was because we had serious doubts about their ability to put partisanship and ideology aside and be fair, neutral judges. Or it was because the President had ignored the traditional role of home State Senators when selecting the nominee. We confirmed numerous

conservative nominees, including Judge Neil Gorsuch. In fact, during the 41 months that I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee while President Bush was in office, the Democratic-majority Senate confirmed more circuit and district nominees than were confirmed during the 55 months when Republicans held the majority.

When President Obama took office, Senate Republicans imposed a new standard. Just 2 days after he was sworn in, a group of extreme conservative activists instructed Senator McConnell to treat President Obama's judicial nominees in an ``unprecedented'' way, and that is what he did. For the first time, even noncontroversial district court nominees were subject to filibusters--Leader Reid was at one time forced to file for cloture on 17 of them in a single day because of Republican obstruction, even though none were particularly controversial and many actually had the support of their home State Republican Senators.

Republicans filibustered judicial nominees they ultimately supported. They stalled Senate action for weeks and months on judicial nominees who they did not oppose and who they ultimately voted to confirm once their filibusters ended. Senate Republicans kept making up new excuses for filibustering nominees that had nothing to do with the nominees themselves. They abused the Thurmond Rule to filibuster Judge Robert Bacharach, even though he had been reported almost unanimously and was supported by his two very conservative Republican home State Senators. It was obstruction for obstruction's sake.

But the final straw was when Republicans blockaded the DC Circuit. The Senate had confirmed four of President Bush's nominees to that court, but only one of President Obama's five nominees. When Senate Republicans filibustered President Obama's last three DC Circuit nominees in late 2013, they barely even bothered to pretend to find fault with the nominees themselves. These were mainstream nominees with broad support. Their only alleged flaw was that they had been nominated by President Obama. Senate Republicans unilaterally decided that President Obama should not get to make additional nominations to that court, effectively trying to nullify the results of the 2012 election-- a prelude to their unprecedented treatment of Chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Compare that to the situation we are in this week. We are told that we must rubberstamp Judge Gorsuch or the majority leader will change the rules. Now, some may remember reports from last year where several Senators promised to blockade any Supreme Court nominations by one of the Presidential candidates if that candidate won the election. Of course, those were Republican Senators talking about Secretary Clinton. But that proposed blockade is not what is happening here. The fact is that there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and that vacancy should be filled with a qualified, mainstream judge. I know that a Republican President would probably make a different selection than the one I would make, but I have always been willing to consult with Presidents of both parties to find mainstream, consensus nominees. That is my constitutional obligation as a Senator.

Now, all Presidents, including President Trump, are entitled to have their Supreme Court nominees considered on the merits. Over my 42 years in the Senate, I have evaluated every nominee on the merits, and I have never gone to reflexive partisanship. In fact, I have voted to confirm six Supreme Court nominees of Republican Presidents. I do not know if there is any Republican in this Senate who could say that about nominees of Democratic Presidents.

Although I had concerns that Judge Gorsuch would bring a partisan agenda to the Court, I went to his hearing with an open mind. I had hoped he could convince me that he was a conservative I could support, as I did Chief Justice Roberts. I voted for Chief Justice Roberts not because I thought I would always agree with him--and I do not--but because I was able to take him at his word that he did not have an ideological agenda. I cannot take Judge Gorsuch's word that same way.

It is no secret that Judge Gorsuch is very conservative--that much was evident back in 2006 when he was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit. Back then, he did not have a judicial record, but he gave answers that were reassuring. He discussed the importance of following precedent and of judicial restraint and deference to Congress. He said, ``Precedent is to be respected and honored. It is not something to be diminished or demeaned. It is something you should try to uphold wherever you can, with the objective being, follow the law as written and not replace it with my own preferences, or anyone else's.'' He explained that judges should not be ideologues who disregard precedent ``to effect [their] own personal views, [their] politics, [their] personal preferences.'' Well, I wish that same judge were before us today, but he is not.

Judge Gorsuch has a fine resume. I do not take issue with the qualifications on paper, but my concern is that he has not lived up to his own standard. I am concerned that his personal views and his politics have permeated throughout his judicial philosophy. That is, in fact, the reason why his nomination is before us today.

To know what kind of a Justice Judge Gorsuch would be, we have to understand why he was chosen. President Trump made very clear right from the beginning that he had a litmus test: Anyone he nominated to the Supreme Court would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade. Then- candidate Trump proceeded to outsource the selection process to far- right interest groups. The leader of that unprecedented vetting process admitted they were not driven by ``Who's a really smart lawyer and who has been really accomplished?'' but by a search for someone ``who understands these things like we do.''

Let us be clear. These are not groups that support independent judges who act with restraint. These groups search for nominees who will skew the courts, who will call to reject precedent, and who will further their partisan agenda. And they gave President Trump a list and said: Here, you are allowed to pick from our people. If these groups sought a mainstream, widely respected, and independent jurist, they would have been as supportive as I was of Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Instead, they funneled money to push Senate Republicans to hold Chief Judge Garland's nomination hostage and to have the Senate defy the Constitution of the United States for the first time ever in not allowing advice and consent.

The Federalist Society's purpose statement, which is on their website, calls for ``reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on,'' among other things, ``traditional values.'' These groups and the billionaire donors who fund them have a clear agenda-- one that is antichoice, antienvironment, and procorporate. I am not one to gamble, but in my mind they would not have gambled with millions of dollars on Judge Gorsuch. They chose and invested in him for a reason. They are supremely confident he shares their far-right agenda. So is the White House.

The White House Chief of Staff has said that Judge Gorsuch ``has the vision of Donald Trump.'' He said that, with this nomination, ``We're talking about a change of potentially 40 years of law.'' It is clear that the people who vetted Judge Gorsuch do not want a nominee who will ``call balls and strikes.'' They want a nominee who will expand the strike zone to the detriment of hard-working Americans. We should all find that concerning.

At his public hearing, Judge Gorsuch did nothing to allay my concerns. In fact, he solidified them. I cannot recall a nominee refusing to answer such basic questions about the principles underlying our Constitution. These were fundamental questions that we should ask every nominee seeking a lifetime appointment to our Highest Court, but Judge Gorsuch would not answer. Some of the questions that I asked him were not intended to be difficult. Several could have been answered by any first-year law student, with ease; yet, unless we were asking about fishing or basketball, Judge Gorsuch stonewalled and avoided any substantive response. He was excruciatingly evasive. His sworn testimony and his approach to complying with the Judiciary Committee's historic role in the confirmation process was, in my view, patronizing.

Judge Gorsuch claimed that he did not want to prejudge potential cases.

That is a valid concern, but only within reason. It should not be used to evade questions on long-settled precedent or on the meaning and purpose of constitutional provisions. Judge Gorsuch would not even state whether he agreed with certain landmark Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education. He refused to say whether he believes that the Equal Protection Clause applies to women. He refused to say whether the framers of the First Amendment believed it permitted the use of a religious litmus test. He refused to provide information regarding his selection by extreme special interest groups and a billionaire businessman. And he even refused to confirm whether he would continue to recuse himself from matters involving that billionaire--as he has done on the Tenth Circuit--even if presented with the exact same facts.

Other Supreme Court nominees have been far more forthcoming. When asked whether he agreed with important precedents, then-Judge Alito answered the questions. When I asked then-Judge Roberts whether Congress has war powers, he said, ``Of course. The Constitution specifically gives that power [to declare war] to Congress.'' I asked whether Congress has the power to stop a war, and he said, ``Congress certainly has the power of the purse,'' but added, ``as a judge, I would obviously be in a position of considering both arguments, the argument for the Legislature and the argument for the Executive. The argument on the Executive side will rely on authority as Commander in Chief, and whatever authorities derive from that.'' It was perhaps not the answer I would have liked, but he certainly engaged with the question and showed that he understood the issue in a way that did not prejudge any potential case.

I later asked then-Judge Roberts whether ``Congress can make rules that may impinge upon the President's command functions.'' He responded: ``Certainly, Senator. The point that Justice Jackson is making there is that the Constitution vests pertinent authority in these areas in both branches. The President is the Commander in Chief, and that meant something to the Founders. On the other hand, as you just quoted, Congress has the authority to issue regulations governing the Armed Forces, another express provision in the Constitution. Those two can conflict if by making regulations for the Armed Forces, Congress does something that interferes with, in the President's view, his command authority, and in some cases those disputes will be resolved in Court, as they were in the Youngstown case.'' Whether one agrees with it or not, that was a substantive answer.

I asked Judge Gorsuch a similar question in writing--whether he agreed that ``the Constitution provides Congress its own war powers and Congress may exercise these powers to restrict the President--even in a time of war'' as the Court held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Here is the totality of his response: ``I agree that Hamdan v. Rumsfeld recognized limitations on the power of the President. It is a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to all the weight due such a precedent.'' Perhaps that is better than no response at all, but not by much.

When I asked Judge Gorsuch a straightforward question about whether the Framers of the First Amendment believed it permitted the use of a religious litmus test, he refused to answer. Any first-year law student knows the answer to that one.

I asked then-Judge Roberts a similar question--whether he would reject Korematsu and hold it unconstitutional to intern U.S. residents who ``have a particular nationality or ethnic or religious group.'' He said: ``I suppose a case like that could come before the Court. I would be surprised to see it, and I would be surprised if there were any arguments that could support it.'' I do not think he prejudged any cases, but he was still able to provide a real answer to a basic question--and he earned my support.

I had hoped that, if Judge Gorsuch was not willing to be transparent for the lights and cameras, he would at least answer written questions--given time to carefully craft answers. Again, he declined. He refused to expressly acknowledge that Congress has war powers, even though we know we do. Every high school student knows that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. He again misstated the holding of Citizens United in an attempt to evade my question about Congress's ability to enact campaign finance legislation. He provided no answer at all to questions regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County to gut the Voting Rights Act or about women's rights to obtain contraception. And, again, he refused to answer whether the First Amendment prohibits the President from imposing a religious test, even when the Trump administration has adamantly claimed such a litmus test is not at issue with his travel ban.

Previous nominees respected the Judiciary Committee's constitutional role by answering questions in a substantive way, not with mere platitudes. The difference is clear to Vermonters. As an editorial in the Rutland Herald put it:

Gorsuch's affable muteness sent a message: I am above the

people and their concerns. I have no responsibility to anyone

but the narrow band of millionaires and ideologues who have

advanced my nomination and to the President who has declared

war on the American government.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the full editorial.

Judge Gorsuch claimed that his personal views do not matter so he would not share them. But that did not stop him from speaking at length about overcriminalization and arguing that there are too many Federal criminal laws and regulations. Those of us on the Judiciary Committee know this is a substantive and controversial policy issue that has been vigorously debated in recent years. I have to wonder why this was the only issue where he put forward his actual views. That is not good enough for me. As the article by Garrett Epps in the Atlantic put it, Judge Gorsuch's refusal to answer questions implied that the role of a judge is ``a job which calls, apparently, for neither values nor any firm connection to human life as it is lived.'' The American people know better.

All of this matters because court decisions, especially Supreme Court decisions, are not simply detached applications of neutral principles. If there were, all judges would reach the same results. They do not. Legal decisions are not mechanical. They are matters of interpretation and, often, matters of justice. One Supreme Court Justice said more than a century ago: ``When we take our seats on the bench we are not struck with blindness, and forbidden to know as judges what we see as men.''

Whether he will acknowledge it or not, Judge Gorsuch's record says a lot about his judgment and his sense of justice. In a policy role at the Justice Department, he embraced broad and discredited assertions of Executive power. Judge Gorsuch once complained about liberals relying on the courts to vindicate their constitutional rights, but, once on the bench, he had no problem rubberstamping the far right's social agenda when he ruled that employers could control their employees' access to contraception. As a judge, he twisted statutory language to limit the rights of workers, of women, and children with disabilities.

Judge Gorsuch also reached for broad constitutional questions that were not before him in order to advance his agenda. Just last summer, Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurrence to his own opinion in a case called Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch. His unanimous panel opinion decided the case on narrow grounds. But Judge Gorsuch nevertheless wrote a separate concurrence to argue that the Chevron doctrine should be overturned. The Chevron doctrine not only forms the basis for our modern government, but it is well-settled law and has been for decades. As Emily Bazelon and Eric Posner wrote in the New York Times, ``The administrative state isn't optional in our complex society. It's indispensable.''

Judge Gorsuch's rejection of that has shown that he is not a mainstream nominee. His judicial record demonstrates a partisan agenda--a hostility toward our government's power to enact environmental, labor, consumer rights, and other regulations that keep hard-working Americans safe and ensure a level playing field--not just for the wealthy few, but for all hard-working Americans.

Between not answering questions, Judge Gorsuch spoke repeatedly about the limited role that judges play in our democracy. His actual record belies that claim. I think that is precisely why these extreme-right interests groups selected Judge Gorsuch. That is why the President's Chief of Staff promised he will bring a change of 40 years of law, and that is why I cannot support this nomination.

It is for this nominee that Senate Republicans have brought us to this precipice, but perhaps we should not be surprised. Republican leadership has sought to govern only by simple majority since day 1 of the Trump administration. They paraded before the Senate the most extreme and partisan slate of Cabinet nominees I have ever seen. Their signature legislative goal--to repeal the Affordable Care Act-- collapsed under the weight of their own intraparty infighting. Then, they dusted off the Congressional Review Act and, by party-line votes, rolled back more than a dozen environmental, workplace, privacy, healthcare, and transparency protections--all over the objections of the minority.

Think about that. Republicans have not sought compromise on anything in this Congress. That is not the way to govern. To give you one example, they repealed an important internet privacy rule that protected Americans' online activity. That means that by party-line vote, hard-working Americans will now see their private internet activity sold to the highest bidder for greater corporate profits. They are allowing these companies to basically come in and spy in your house because they are making money.

But Senate Republicans didn't stop there. They rolled back protections to ensure that all students have the same educational opportunities. They eliminated rules requiring employers to maintain records of workplace injuries so employers could avoid accountability. In other words, if you have major injuries, you do not have to keep a record of that to make sure nobody knows this is a dangerous place to work. They rolled back rules holding coal companies accountable for their pollution. Most recently, Republicans undermined healthcare access for millions of Americans, rolling back protections under the title X program. In underserved communities and rural areas like Vermont, title X is critical in making sure women have access to the basic healthcare they need.

But that is what one-party rule gets you. They are great at looking out for corporate interests. They struggle at looking out for the interests of hard-working Americans. The irony of it all is that even these partisan efforts have been too partisan for some Republicans. Three times this year--the most of any Vice President since 1911--Vice President Pence was forced to make the trip to Capitol Hill to break a tie and ensure some of these extreme measures passed.

With the Gorsuch nomination, Republicans are proving they have no interest in playing by the rules; they prefer to break them. The unprecedented obstruction of Chief Judge Merrick Garland is going to be a permanent stain on this body. But then, days after the 2016 election--after Republicans turned their back on the Constitution for a whole year, even though they had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, which calls for advice and consent, they refused to advise and consent and have a vote on Chief Judge Merrick Garland-- Republican leaders threatened to change the rules to get their own nominee through--before we even had a name. After disregarding his constitutional obligations for nearly a year, the majority leader now tells us we must rubberstamp President Trump's nominee or he will forever damage the Senate.

It is interesting that the majority leader's argument for obstructing Chief Judge Merrick Garland was that the American people needed to weigh in on this decision, as if they had not weighed in when they reelected President Obama in 2012. But when the American people did vote last November, nearly 3 million more of them chose Secretary Clinton over Donald Trump. In fact, Ezra Klein had it right 2 months ago when he wrote that this nomination ``makes a mockery of the popular will.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the article, ``The country deserves a compromise Supreme Court nominee. Neil Gorsuch isn't one,'' by Ezra Klein, also be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Because of the divergence between the popular and electoral vote, Klein argued, ``This is a time, if ever there was one, for a compromise nominee, and Gorsuch is not a compromise nominee.'' This is exactly what the 60-vote threshold is for. It helps ensure that Presidents consult with Senators of both parties and find mainstream, consensus nominees. The filibuster protects the rights of the minority and of individual Senators; it protects the constitutional role of the Senate, and it helps us protect the independence of the Supreme Court. The Court is no place for someone with a radical, partisan agenda.

Senate Republicans are defending their threat to change the rules by claiming that Judge Gorsuch is essentially a perfect nominee and that, if Democrats filibuster Judge Gorsuch, then we would filibuster anyone. That is nonsense. We have asked only for a mainstream nominee. Perhaps they are confusing our approach with their blockade of Chief Judge Garland. Unlike committee Republicans' treatment of Chief Judge Merrick Garland, I take my constitutional duty to independently evaluate a President's Supreme Court nominees seriously. As I have said, my votes on Supreme Court nominations have never been about reflexive partisanship. I have evaluated every nominee on the merits--and I have voted to confirm six Supreme Court nominees of Republican Presidents.

If the Senate does not vote to end debate on this nomination, that is a judgment on defects of this nominee. I remind the Republicans that they do have a choice here. We can work together with President Trump to find a mainstream, consensus nominee. I expect that an actual mainstream nominee would be confirmed easily, even if nominated by President Trump. Recall the process President Obama used when he selected Chief Judge Merrick Garland. He sought advice from both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress and was told this was a person who would get a solid majority vote. He said: ``We have reached out to every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to constitutional scholars, to advocacy groups, to bar associations, representing an array of interests and opinions from all across the spectrum.'' President Obama nominated somebody who, in normal times, would have gotten the vast majority of votes of Republicans and Democrats. If President Trump would have followed that template, we would not be in this extraordinary place.

Let me conclude with this. In the committee, I said I respect this institution as much as anyone. I have been here for more than 42 years. I have devoted myself to the good the Senate can accomplish. We 100 Senators stand in the shoes of 320 million Americans. We should be the conscience of the Nation. First and foremost, we must do what is right by 320 million Americans. And I am not going to vote solely to protect an institution when the rights of hard-working Americans are at risk. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the legislative situation?

Mr. President, I wish to speak for just a few minutes about H.J. Res. 43. I see this as a misguided and unfortunate attack on healthcare for women. Certainly that is what I am hearing from women from the State of Vermont.

Three months into the 115th Congress, the Senate has yet to consider real legislation aimed at addressing the many challenges we Americans face today. Instead, the Senate, with simple-majority votes-- permissible through the rarely used Congressional Review Act--is rolling back key protections for the American people that were put in place by the last administration. Never mind that the current administration has the power to address certain aspects of regulations that they wish to rewrite. No. They could address these. They could seek a rewriting of them. They could seek legislation. But, instead, Republicans in Congress are intent on using this blunt procedure to unravel years of very careful and deliberative work. These raw power plays are part of the Trump-Republican ``know-nothing, anti-science'' agenda, in which the winners are not the American people. They are not the women of my State. They are not the average person you might meet. Instead, they are typically the wealthy and powerful special interests and big polluters. They win, and the losers are real Americans.

Today, we are considering the 12th such resolution, one that rolls back protections under the Title X program. Title X of the Public Health Service Act is the only Federal grant program dedicated to providing those eligible with comprehensive family planning and preventive health services. In rural areas--and every single State has a rural area, but my State is especially rural--we know that Title X is crucial in making sure women have access to the basic healthcare they need. Unfortunately, in recent years, some States have made exceptions about which providers may deliver services under Title X, excluding family planning clinics.

Seeing the burden these rules would place on women seeking healthcare, the Obama administration finalized a regulation in December 2016 that protects these providers from this type of discrimination, and women from these hardships. The resolution we are considering today would undo this regulation, once again allowing States to discriminate against providers, thereby limiting access to healthcare services for millions--that is not hyperbole; it really is millions--of women and their families. Worse still, the resolution would prevent a similar rule or regulation from being implemented in the future.

In Vermont, our sole Title X provider is Planned Parenthood. Even in a State as rural as Vermont, no one has to drive longer than 45 minutes to reach a clinic. That is important to us. We consider 4 to 5 inches of snow a heavy dusting, but we often have 10 to 15 inches of snow. Nobody should have to drive farther than that to reach healthcare.

This type of access is critical for those who need these services. It is especially important because for 40 percent of women, their visit to a family planning health center is the only healthcare they receive during the year. Vermonters are lucky because our State recognizes that this issue isn't about abortion, it is about ensuring the best network of providers for the people of our State. But other States have already worked to undermine family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood.

The passage of this resolution will allow these discriminatory efforts to advance, especially discriminatory efforts against women. There is no question about it: A vote for this resolution is a vote against women. This resolution would not only affect the lives of millions of American women, but it would also affect the lives of men and young people who trust and depend on family planning clinics for their basic healthcare needs, including for annual health exams, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and HIV screenings.

Last year in Vermont--keep in mind that Vermont has a population of just over 600,000 people--Planned Parenthood centers provided vital primary and preventive services to more than 16,000 patients. In a small State like Vermont, this harmful impact cannot be overstated.

Those who support this resolution argue that the States should be able to determine who receives Title X grants, and that women under this program can simply find another clinic to go to. Well, that is simply not the case. In fact, that argument is false. It is a lie. Family planning clinics overwhelmingly serve populations in rural and medically underserved parts of the country where access to healthcare, especially for low-income individuals, is difficult.

It is easy--easy--for Senators to vote to cut off this healthcare for women and children and people in rural areas because each one of us, if we need healthcare, can walk 2 minutes down this hall and walk to the Capitol physician and say ``I am a U.S. Senator. I need healthcare,'' and we are going to get it. While that may be the reality for 100 people in this body, it is not the reality for millions and millions of people in every single State we represent.

What this partisan resolution would do is force women and families in States who depend on family planning clinics for their healthcare to find another doctor--and often very few are available--or what is more likely, go without care at all. So they don't get preventive care, they don't get checkups, and they don't find the first indication that they may be facing melanoma or some other serious health problem. That undermines all of our efforts, which we should be joining, to strengthen our Nation's healthcare system, to try to make our healthcare system at least as good as many other countries', and to ensure access to care for everyone.

This Republican resolution marks just the latest overreach and intrusion into women's healthcare.

We even voted for a resolution to allow people to spy on what you do on the internet, and then sell that information for their own profit, destroying your privacy, but making money doing it.

Until the House failed to even take it up, the Senate was scheduled to consider a reconciliation bill this week that would have defunded Planned Parenthood and would have allowed health insurers to deny coverage for maternity care, thus requiring women to pay more for health insurance.

In the last Congress, it was more of the same--deny coverage for maternity care, and then go out and say: We believe in the right to life. Clearly not so much for the mother when she needs maternity care.

Should we really walk back from the remarkable progress we have made as a nation in women's health? Of course not. But I am concerned that we will still see the same irresponsible attack surfacing again and again.

Look, it is 2016; it is not 1917. It is time for the mean-spirited and ideological assaults on women's healthcare to end. Women are not second-class citizens. My wife is not, my daughter is not, and my three granddaughters are not. They deserve the same access to care as men.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution that will degrade the healthcare and access to healthcare, of so many Americans.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last week I spoke about the importance of the rule of law in Guatemala and praised the work of Attorney General Thelma Aldana and the commissioner of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, Ivan Velasquez. These two individuals have helped to create hope among the Guatemalan people in the possibility of justice in a country where the justice system has too often been used to perpetuate corruption, impunity, and inequality.

The International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, or CICIG, has been strongly supported by the United States. I commended President Morales when, shortly after taking office last January, he extended CICIG's mandate. He has affirmed that he supports CICIG's mandate through September 2019, for which, again, I commend him.

Last week, I expressed a concern that had been conveyed to me by several individuals that President Morales might recommend against renewal of Mr. Velasquez as commissioner beyond September 2017, when Mr. Velasquez's current term expires. In response, according to press reports, President Morales denied this and said he supports Mr. Velasquez for as long as Mr. Velasquez does the job he is supposed to do.

Ivan Velasquez is a respected former judge from Colombia who has carried out his responsibilities as the commissioner of CICIG with professionalism. He and Attorney General Aldana have collaborated on sensitive, complex cases, which until recently would never have been prosecuted in Guatemala, given its history of impunity. It is important that their collaboration continue for as long as possible.

I welcome President Morales's public statement of support for CICIG and for Mr. Velasquez, particularly at a time when the U.S. Congress is again being asked to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to support the Alliance for Prosperity Plan. That plan, which is in its early stages, has the potential to make progress in combating the poverty, lack of opportunity, inequality, violence, and impunity that are among the key contributors to migration from Central America to the United States. These are deeply rooted problems that the Central American countries and the United States have a strong interest in working together to address.

For the Alliance for Prosperity Plan to succeed, each of the Central American governments needs to take steps that their predecessors were unwilling or unable to take. Those steps include ensuring that senior government officials and their advisers are people of integrity; redefining the antagonistic relationship between government and civil society, to one of mutual respect for each other's legitimate role; fully supporting efforts to combat corruption by CICIG and by the Mission to Support the Fight Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras--El Salvador should also recognize the important role these entities are playing and support the establishment of a similar commission to combat corruption and impunity in that country-- increasing the budget of the Office of the Attorney General, so they have the necessary personnel, training, equipment, and protection to carry out their responsibilities throughout the country, especially in areas where they have never had the resources to operate; supporting the independence of the judiciary, including the selection of judges based on their qualifications and the principle of equal access to justice; and building transparent and accountable institutions of democracy that can withstand attempts to subvert the rights of the people, including demilitarizing law enforcement and building professional, civilian police forces.

It is the responsibility of the Central American governments to take these steps and, by doing so, create the conditions for building more prosperous, equitable, and just societies. If they do that and they meet the other conditions in U.S. law, the United States should support them.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the enduring legacy of a champion of education and equity in my home State of Vermont, David Wolk.

For the last 16 years, Mr. David Wolk has served admirably as the president of Castleton University. David's retirement at the close of 2017 will leave a legacy of nearly 17 years of academic excellence, visionary leadership, and unmatched commitment to community. As the longest serving president in its history, David has led Castleton through an extraordinary transformation. David leaves Castleton as a vibrant, economic engine of the Green Mountain State and a trailblazer in inclusivity, entrepreneurship, and service learning.

Castleton students have often found a unique kinship with David, noting his frequency in the student dining halls and at student club events. As an avid fan of Castleton Spartan Athletics, David is proud of the accomplishments of the school's student-athletes. The university more than doubled its varsity sport offerings during David's tenure, enabling Vermont students to play Division III sports. The largest community investment was the development of the Spartan Arena, which is used by both the school and the community as an all-purpose community center and athletic space.

As a Rutland native, David has always felt a special connection to his hometown. As president, his focus on integrating Castleton and the surrounding community has built a lasting alliance that promises regional prosperity for years to come. Most recently, Castleton has partnered with the Rutland Economic Development Corporation to open the Castleton Downtown Office, a publicly accessible space for students and community members alike. A nexus of the downtown, this space now hosts the Center for Entrepreneurial Programs, Center for Schools, Center for Community Engagement, and the Castleton Polling Institute. David's passion for the arts has also inspired a coupling of the Castleton Downtown Art Gallery and the historic Paramount Theatre.

As the needs of our students, families, and communities continue to evolve, David's legacy is his success in elevating education as a key solution to addressing our most pressing public challenges. As he transitions to his next venture, I wish David and his wife, Lyn, great success and hope they will find joy in visiting family and friends found throughout the world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement issued by Castleton University be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as in so many rural States, small businesses make up the backbone of Vermont's economy and communities. Countless Vermont businesses develop and manufacture a wide array of products, ranging from our thriving craft beer industry to Vermont-made peanut butter, candles, chocolates, and cheeses. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize one of Vermont's outstanding small businesses, Jasper Hill Farm. A small, rural creamery in the Northeast Kingdom, Jasper Hill Farm exemplifies our State's essential balance of innovation and tradition. Andy and Mateo Kehler have worked for more than 15 years to make the best cheese possible, all while remaining true to their Vermont roots.

Now an award-winning artisan cheese business, Jasper Hill Farm began two decades ago when the brothers Kehler pooled their resources to buy a small farm in rural Greensboro, VT. They decided to try a new model of small-scale, value-added dairy farming that would transform raw milk into a more valuable product before leaving the farm. To do so, Mateo and Andy built a creamery with space to age cheese next door to the barn. After 5 years of hard work, the brothers finally had their first marketable cheese.

What started as a few racks of cheese with a couple of direct customers quickly expanded, as did the farm's notoriety. Within 3 years, Jasper Hill Farm took home ``Best of Show'' at the American Cheese Society Conference. Despite their hard-earned success, Andy and Mateo continued with their vision of increasing access to value-added production for all interested farmers. They took new measures to create opportunities for community success, opening their space to other cheesemakers. Now, the creamery is home not only to numerous cheese caves, but to a modern laboratory where scientists work to create cheese starter cultures. Years of research have enabled the creation of better cheese, and Jasper Hill Farm has become a magnet for other artisan cheesemakers along the way.

Andy and Mateo have created an outstanding business that is rooted in the Vermont values of hard work and perseverance, while emphasizing the importance of community. Their efforts to reinvigorate the State's dairy industry have contributed to our State's identity and culture, as well as our agricultural traditions. I am proud to feature the work of Jasper Hill Farm at our annual Taste of Vermont event, and I look forward to seeing what their future brings.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times article about Jasper Hill Farm be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I have been privileged to serve in this body for more than 42 years, and I thank my native State of Vermont for that.

When I joined the Senate, our country was still crawling out of an intractable war--a war which came to an end with a vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee in April of 1975. Since then, I have seen our country slide into new wars. I have seen scandals that have consumed this town and our Nation. I have seen horrific terrorist attacks that have shaken our country to its core, from Oklahoma City to 9/11, and others. All of these events, in different ways, have tested our country. But I have never seen a threat to our democratic institutions like I see today.

There is still much we do not know about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, but what we do know is deeply disturbing. Last night, reports indicated that there is evidence that certain Trump officials coordinated the release of hacked documents with Russian officials. And on Monday the FBI Director confirmed that the FBI has been investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia since July of last year.

Already, the Intelligence Community has made public its conclusion that Russian President Putin waged a multifaceted influence campaign to delegitimize Secretary Clinton and help Donald Trump win the Presidency. Worse, he intended to undermine public faith in our democratic process. What is even worse is that this interference did not end on November 8, election day. It is ongoing. That--whether you are a Republican or a Democrat--should concern every American.

According to the Intelligence Community, President Putin will continue using cyber-attacks and propaganda campaigns to undermine our future elections. This is nothing less than an attack on our democracy. It should outrage all Americans, no matter what their political affiliation, and we need to know all the facts.

Frankly, my experience here tells me we need a thorough, independent investigation. We need to send a clear message to President Putin that America, our country--the country that the Presiding Officer and I revere--will not tolerate future efforts to manipulate our most sacred democratic process, our elections.

All of us here know that President Trump is not going to lead such an investigation. He is not going to deliver this message. The President, unfortunately, spent much of the 2016 campaign supportive of President Putin. Then-Candidate Trump refused to call on Russia to stop meddling in our election, saying: ``I'm not going to tell Putin what to do.'' He even encouraged Russian hacking on live television, pleading: ``Russia, if you're listening, I hope you'll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.'' It is unprecedented. No candidate, in my memory, of either party has ever called on another country to interfere in our elections that way.

This was occurring as the President was claiming to have had no role in weakening the Republican Party's official position on Russia's incursion into Ukraine. Of course, we have now learned that this was false, and his campaign played a central role in softening his party's stance on Russia.

I do not know why the President is so enthralled with President Vladimir Putin, a man who has shown such disregard for personal rights, even as he has made himself one of the wealthiest people in the world. It may be simply because Russia is heavily invested in the Trump brand. Years before the President denied having any financial relationships with the Russians, his son admitted that Russians own a disproportionate share of Trump assets, saying: ``We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.'' Now, just how invested Moscow is in Trump is not known. The President broke with precedent of both Republicans and Democrats and did not release his tax returns. But I imagine there would be quite a sigh of relief if the only secret in the President's full tax returns were that he did not pay his share of taxes and paid far less than the average American.

The President, though, is not the only one in his administration incapable of telling the truth when it comes to Russia. His Attorney General provided testimony that was not true before the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to questions from me and Senator Franken about Russian contacts, and we know his first National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, resigned after lying to Vice President Pence about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador.

President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, also resigned after questions were raised about his extensive activities in Russia and Ukraine. Of course, now it has been reported that Mr. Manafort earned $10 million per year for secret work on behalf of Putin.

Another former adviser, Roger Stone, had early warning of the release of hacked documents. He has admitted to having conversations with ``Guccifer 2.0,'' the Russian-connected hacker responsible for the cyber-attack on the Democratic National Committee.

They say that where there is smoke there is fire. There is so much smoke here that it is getting hard to breathe. The President unfortunately continues to make matters worse. This week alone, he continued his untruth about President Obama personally ordering a wiretap of Trump Tower, something everybody knows is not true. I think members of his own administration's inner circle are embarrassed every time he persists in this.

On Monday, the President ramped up his own influence campaign to undermine the integrity of this investigation, tweeting ``fake news'' as the Director of the FBI prepared to testify under oath in the House of Representatives.

Now, I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the FBI's investigation thus far, but I have every reason to believe it is eventually going to be at risk. That is why we need somebody independent--independent of the Congress, independent of the administration. We need an independent special prosecutor to lead this investigation and to ultimately decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. A special prosecutor would not report to the Attorney General, who himself is a witness to this investigation. And a special prosecutor, unlike the Attorney General or even the FBI Director, cannot be fired by the President.

I have thought long and hard about this. I went on my experience here with administrations beginning with President Gerald Ford straight through to today. It takes a lot of thought to call for a special prosecutor, but this is one where we need it, where the American people have to have somebody they can trust outside Republicans, Democrats, and the Congress, and certainly outside the administration.

Our Nation is at a precipice. We can either confront what happened in our election and get to the bottom of it with an independent investigation and make sure it never happens again. Or we can just pretend this is another Washington scandal and allow it to be filtered through a familiar partisan lens. That would be a terrible mistake. In all my years here, I have never seen a time when another country--one that has shown its animosity toward us--has tried to interfere in our elections. If Russia can get away with interfering with our elections, what else can they interfere with in our democratic Nation? They do not share the ideals we do. They do not allow free elections. They do not allow freedom of expression. They do not allow their people to speak out. Why would anyone think that they would have America's interests at heart?

Today we have a counterintelligence investigation into the campaign of a sitting President. There is evidence that this campaign colluded with a foreign adversary to impact our Presidential election. This is not normal. We must not treat it as such. I would feel this way no matter who had won the election--no matter if they were Democrat or Republican, because it goes beyond one party.

President Putin's goal last year was to undermine our democratic institutions--to corrode American's trust and faith in government, something that has sustained us through two World Wars, through a Civil War, through all the other problems this Nation has faced. That trust should sustain us long after every one of us in this body are gone.

This is a responsibility that we as Senators have to our great Nation: not to think of ourselves for the moment, but to think where this Nation is 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and 100 years from now. We must do that. We owe that to the American people. Republicans and Democrats alike, we owe it

to the American people. We take an oath to uphold our Constitution.

We come here, all of us--and I have great respect for every Senator here in both parties--we come here hoping to do the best for our Nation. Our Nation is in peril. All of us would stand together if we had an adversary attack us. All of us would stand together if somebody declared war on us. We have done that in the past. We did that after Pearl Harbor. We did that other times in our Nation's history. Well, because this is done quietly behind the scenes, it is a great attack on us.

As I said, President Putin's goal last year was to undermine our democratic institutions--to corrode Americans' trust and faith in our government, no matter who is President. If we do not get to the bottom of Russian interference, he will no doubt be successful. And if anybody doubts it, if he is successful, he will try it again.

That is why we should stand united and call for a truly independent investigation. The American people deserve nothing less. We can sit here and talk about this bill and that bill, but it is so rare that we have something overriding. This is overriding. Let's have an independent investigation. This Senator is willing to accept that whichever way it goes.

I see our distinguished majority leader on the floor.

I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Mr. President, Senate will soon vote on the nomination of David Friedman to be U.S. Ambassador to Israel.

I oppose his nomination.

Mr. Friedman has made a career of derogatory and inflammatory statements about U.S. policy in the Middle East, about former U.S. officials, about the Palestinians, and about American Jews who have views that differ from his own.

He has written falsely that President Obama and Secretary Kerry engaged in ``blatant anti-Semitism,'' that liberal American Jews are ``far worse than kapos,'' and that they ``suffer a cognitive disconnect in identifying good and evil.''

He has accused the State Department of a ``hundred-year history of anti-Semitism,'' apparently because diplomats in both Republican and Democratic administrations have not always agreed with the actions of some of Israel's leaders.

Those comments alone should disqualify him for this sensitive position.

Mr. Friedman has also raised millions of dollars for Israeli settlers and bragged about leading the effort to remove the two-state solution from the Republican Party's platform.

Regarding the two-state solution, he wrote that it is ``an illusion that serves the worst intentions of both the United States and the Palestinian Arabs.'' That renunciation of longstanding U.S. policy should also, by itself, disqualify him for the job of Ambassador to Israel.

Mr. Friedman is certainly entitled to his own views as a private citizen, even if they are offensive and counter to U.S. interests and values. But can anyone honestly say that this nominee is qualified or suited to represent the American people in Israel?

Five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel, who served under Republican and Democratic Presidents going back as far as President Reagan, say the answer is no.

An alliance as longstanding as ours with Israel, which has far- reaching consequences for the entire Middle East, requires effective daily management by an experienced diplomat who not only has knowledge of the region but the temperament and appreciation of our short- and long-term interests.

I do not see how anyone could conclude that Mr. Friedman possesses the requisite temperament or objectivity. The record is devoid of evidence that he appreciates the critical distinction between the interests of the United States and the parochial interests of an extreme constituency in Israel that he has fiercely advocated for over the course of his long career.

Mr. Friedman's confirmation hearing provided him the opportunity to assuage concerns about his divisiveness, including the many disparaging remarks he has made and his close identification with and support for, the Israeli settler movement.

During the hearing, he disavowed his past undiplomatic statements, saying he was speaking as a private citizen.

Mr. Friedman's remarkable confirmation conversion falls far short of convincing evidence that changing his title to ``Ambassador'' will cause him to divorce his life's work and objectively serve the interests of the American people.

We all want what is best for the American people. We also share a desire to find a viable solution to the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict that protects the rights and security of both peoples.

Neither goal can be achieved by pursuing policies that further inflame tensions and erode the role of the United States as an honest broker for peace.

There are any number of qualified Americans who could capably support that role. Mr. Friedman is not among them.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on two nominees to the U.S. Sentencing Commission who should have been confirmed last year. Judge Danny Reeves was nominated more than 1 year ago, and he was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee; yet Senate Republicans refused to approve him before the end of last year. Judge Charles Breyer was nominated last September for a reappointment, and despite overwhelming support, Republicans blocked him as well. These are not controversial nominees, and there is no good reason they were blocked last year. In fact, in ordinary times, these nominees would be unanimously confirmed during wrap-up on the Senate floor.

richard boulware

Mr. President, one nominee we are not considering today is Judge Richard Boulware, whom President Obama nominated in 2015 to fill a seat on the Sentencing Commission previously held by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Judge Boulware was confirmed to serve as a district judge in June 2014, becoming the first African-American man to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. His nomination to the Sentencing Commission had the strong support of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which said that Judge Boulware would ``bring a much needed and valuable perspective to the work of the Commission because of his experience.'' Judge Boulware clerked in the Southern District of New York, served as a Federal public defender, and represented the Las Vegas branch of the NAACP on a range of issues, including voting rights, police cameras, and solitary confinement.

Despite his clear qualifications, Senate Republicans blocked Judge Boulware, and his nomination was returned to the White House at the end of last year. President Trump renominated Judge Reeves and Judge Breyer, but I am disappointed that he failed to do the same for Judge Boulware. The Sentencing Commission does not have a single person of Color serving as a commissioner; yet its work on criminal justice issues has a significant effect on communities of color. Judge Boulware should have been confirmed last year, along with Judge Reeves and Judge Breyer. While I support the two nominees before us today, I want the Record to note my deep disappointment and concern that Judge Boulware is not among them.

For nearly a decade, I have worked with Senators from both parties on bipartisan legislation to reform our criminal justice system. The Sentencing Commission has also studied the issue and brought about needed change to the sentencing guidelines. The Bureau of Prisons continues to consume nearly a quarter of the Justice Department's budget, even as violent crime rates have gone down; but instead of taking meaningful steps to reduce these costs, the Trump-Sessions Justice Department has signaled it intends to more aggressively charge low-level offenders with crimes carrying mandatory minimums. The Attorney General also lifted restrictions on the use of private prisons that serve only the interest of wealthy corporations. This is deeply troubling on moral grounds. Incarceration should not be a for-profit business. It is also troubling to me in my role as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on private prisons, we should be directing our limited resources to train and protect officers on the streets and to reduce recidivism and crime.

The Sentencing Commission has brought much-needed fairness to the Guidelines in the past, and I hope it will continue to do so once its new members are confirmed, Although we should also be voting today on Judge Boulware's nomination to the commission--rather, we should have voted on it last year--I will support the nominations of Judge Breyer and Judge Reeves.

breyer nomination

Mr. President, last Thursday the Trump administration submitted its first budget blueprint to Congress. The President called it ``America First, A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.'' The title would seem like a ``Saturday Night Live'' skit if the topic were not so serious. Like some of the President's tweets, his budget is a hasty list of appallingly unbalanced, shortsighted, and, I believe, politically driven priorities.

He proposes to eliminate or drastically cut programs that benefit the middle class and safeguard its most vulnerable citizens, programs that protect our environment, programs that promote our interests overseas but also security at home. Instead, he wants to spend billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars on a misguided wall along our southern border and increased spending for the Pentagon.

He says his proposal causes ``strength, security and resolve.'' He couldn't be more wrong. You don't want to make America ``great again'' at the expense of middle-class families and the most vulnerable among us. We are not a ``great'' nation if we abandon our shared desire to cure cancer, the desire to bring an end to Alzheimer's disease or diabetes. We don't do that by slashing billions for the National Institutes of Health. You can't switch complex and promising medical research off and then say: Well, maybe someday later we will just turn it back on again.

We are not a great nation if we eliminate heating assistance for the 6 million vulnerable households that receive LIHEAP. Some 21,000 of those households just had to dig themselves out from a historic snowstorm in my State of Vermont. And we are not a ``great'' nation if we don't protect the air we breathe and the water we drink.

You don't make America stronger by eliminating the very programs that strengthen our alliances around the world and make our Nation more secure. We are not a strong nation if we simply pour more money into the Pentagon but then renege on commitments to international peacekeeping and security alliances or slash funding to respond to humanitarian crises or cut our diplomatic presence around the world. Interesting enough, when the other body spent millions of tax dollars to investigate a lack of security in Benghazi and came up with nothing, this budget slashes huge amounts that could be spent on security in our embassies, just as they voted to cut out hundreds of millions of dollars from a Senate budget that would have improved our security.

The President says he prefers hard power to soft power, but it is not either/or. The notion that soft power is weak or wasteful is mindless. If you are cutting programs that feed millions or prevent AIDS or treat tuberculosis and malaria, well, that doesn't help. It makes the world less stable, less secure.

I am afraid the budget proposal is divorced from reality. It has a lot of partisan campaign promises. He promises infrastructure investment--and all of us would agree with that--but then it cuts critical Federal funds for proven successful State transportation projects. He claims it will save rural America, but he cuts those Federal programs that spur rural economic development. That is not a budget with vision.

We need a serious budget proposal--a proposal that acknowledges the devastating effects the Budget Control Act and sequestration have had in our country and a budget that charts a path forward, rather than doubling down on further cuts on programs for the middle class. We need a budget proposal investing in our citizens and in our military, not a proposal that pays for one at the expense of the other.

We have a lot of work to do. I am the vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I would say we have

to finish the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bills and then get to work on fiscal year 2018. Anybody who has been a Governor of their State would recognize that because they know they have to do it in their State. We should do it for the United States. To accomplish that, we need a budget framework that respects the principles in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, including parity between the defense and nondefense spending and that, even though they might be politically popular, doesn't have poison pill riders. We need relief from sequestration, not more misguided cuts.

This budget proposal takes us backward, not forward. But we can remind ourselves that it is Congress that holds the power of the purse, not the President. I have said that, whether we had Democratic or Republican Presidents. I take the responsibility seriously. I look forward to working across the aisle with colleagues both on and off the Appropriations Committee. I want to craft a responsible budget, a thoughtful budget, a serious budget--one that truly makes us a better and safer Nation and reflects the values we share as Americans.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, article 2 of chapter I of the Charter of the Organization of American States, of which Ecuador is a party, states that one of the OAS's purposes is ``to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of nonintervention.''

I mention this because the second round of Ecuador's Presidential election is scheduled for April 2, less than 2 weeks away. In the first round, Lenin Moreno, who is supported by outgoing President Correa, received 39 percent and his opponent, Guillermo Lasso, received 28 percent, so it is a hotly contested election.

But democracy is about more than elections. There is no institution more fundamental to democracy than a free and independent press. A free press helps protect the rule of law, to ensure that no person or group is above the rules and procedures that govern a democratic society. A free press helps ensure transparency to prod governments to be honest and accountable to their citizens.

Although wavering at times, Ecuador has a history of democratic government of which its citizens can be proud. It has a long tradition of recognizing the importance of freedom of the press. Ecuador's first constitution, written in 1830, stipulated that ``every citizen can express their thoughts and publish them freely through the press.'' Ecuador's 1998 constitution guaranteed the right of journalists and social communicators to ``seek, receive, learn, and disseminate'' events of general interest, with the goal of ``preserving the values of the community.'' Even Ecuador's current constitution protects the right ``to voice one's opinion and express one's thinking freely and in all of its forms and manifestations,'' and the right to ``associate, assemble and express oneself freely and voluntarily.''

Yet, since President Correa was first elected, freedom of the press has been under assault. He has called the independent press his ``greatest enemy.'' He sought to intimidate and silence his critics in the media and civil society, like Janet Hinostroza, El Universo, Vanguardia, El Comercio, Xavier Bonilla, and Fundamedios. He publicly vilified Dr. Catalina Botero, a respected Colombian lawyer and former OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. He pursued criminal charges against columnists and newspaper owners who had criticized his policies. During this period, the number of state-owned media organizations exploded, growing from just one government-run news outlet to a media conglomerate that today is made up of more than a dozen outlets echoing the government's self-serving declarations. These actions are a threat to democracy, and they damaged relations with the United States.

On April 2, when the people of Ecuador elect their next President, they alone will decide Ecuador's future. What is important at this stage is to ensure that the electoral process is free and fair, that the press can participate freely, and that the election is open to international observers, including the OAS.

Whoever wins on April 2, I hope Ecuador's next President is someone who genuinely believes in the freedoms of

expression and association that are enshrined in Ecuador's Constitution. I hope he defends the right of a free press, an independent judiciary, and the right of civil society organizations to function without government interference. These rights are part of the foundation of the representative democracy referenced in the OAS Charter. The alternative is unaccountable government. That is, in fact, where Ecuador was heading, after President Correa orchestrated the adoption of a new constitution in order to run for reelection in 2009 and again in 2013.

I hope the result on April 2 will signify a commitment to uphold Ecuador's Constitution and the beginning of a new relationship with the United States, based on a common devotion to the fundamental rights of citizens.

Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention to the current situation in Guatemala, where upholding the rule of law has too often been the exception rather than the rule.

For centuries, most Guatemalans had no access to justice. This was exacerbated during--and in the years since--the civil war, when an estimated 200,000 people were killed or disappeared. Most of them were innocent victims of the armed forces, and only a small number of the military officers and their accomplices who were responsible have been punished. In fact, the armed forces and their benefactors have for the most part successfully avoided justice, by threatening prosecutors and witnesses and paying off judges.

At the same time, Guatemala is experiencing the corrosive effects of drug gangs, smugglers, and organized crime. Former President Perez Molina is under arrest, and other high-ranking officials have been implicated in corruption. Rampant gang violence and a lack of job opportunities have caused tens of thousands of Guatemalans, including unaccompanied minors, to seek safety and employment in the United States.

Two individuals, Thelma Aldana, Guatemala's Attorney General, and Ivan Velasquez, the head of CICIG, the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, have been courageously investigating these high- profile cases and working diligently to bring those responsible to justice. Both are respected former judges, Aldana a Guatemalan and Velasquez a Colombian.

The United States, with the support of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, has provided funding to both of their offices.

It is difficult, dangerous work. They have received anonymous threats in an attempt to intimidate them, and there is a concern that President Morales may oppose the renewal of Mr. Velasquez's term of duty, which ends in September, or request the U.N. Secretary General to remove or replace Mr. Velasquez.

This would be of great concern because no democracy can survive without the rule of law, and there can be no rule of law without independent investigators, prosecutors, and judges.

In Guatemala, with its history of impunity, Thelma Aldana and Ivan Velasquez are making history by showing the Guatemalan people that justice is possible. It is possible even in cases in which the perpetrators are high-ranking government officials, members of their families, or others with wealth and power who have long evaded justice.

Guatemala needs our support to reduce poverty and malnutrition, improve education, combat crime, reform the police, and strengthen its economy and public institutions, but none of that can be achieved or sustained without political will and a transparent, accountable justice system. I know this from my own experience, first as a prosecutor, and more recently as the senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I have been here a long time, in fact longer than any other Senator. I know Guatemala's history and the daunting challenges it faces. Its people deserve better, and they need leaders who respect the rule of law.

If Guatemala's leaders support Thelma Aldana and Ivan Velasquez for as long they are willing to make the personal sacrifice and continue their important work, we will do our part by supporting the Alliance for Prosperity, but if there are attempts to undermine or curtail the work of these two outstanding prosecutors, then Guatemala's leaders should look elsewhere for support.

Mr. President, for over a decade, Vermont has been named one of the healthiest States in the Nation. For those who know the tireless dedication of Vermont's Commissioner of Health, Dr. Harry Chen, this fact is not surprising. Dr. Chen recently made the difficult decision to not seek reappointment. He leaves behind a legacy which future leaders will undoubtedly follow.

Dr. Chen has long graced Vermont as a top leader in healthcare. Before his appointment as health commissioner in 2011, Dr. Chen served in the Vermont House of Representatives from 2004 to 2008 and in his last term was the vice chair of the Health Care Committee. In 2008, he was honored with the Physician Award for Community Service by the Vermont State Medical Society.

Prior to his election to the State legislature, Dr. Chen worked for more than 20 years as an emergency room physician and medical director at the Rutland Regional Medical Center. Dr. Chen also served on the clinical faculty at the University of Vermont's College of Medicine and as vice chair of the University of Vermont's board of trustees. He obtained his medical degree and completed his residency at the University of Oregon's school of medicine as chief resident.

Dr. Chen's work to improve public health awareness and education has long made Vermont a nationwide leader in healthcare. As Vermont's Commissioner of Health since 2011 and briefly as the interim Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2014 to 2015, Dr. Chen led the charge to expand public health education and resources across the State. Dr. Chen was especially instrumental in the fight against opioid and substance abuse. I was proud when he testified at the field hearing I held on the issue while ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2014. In the years after, he worked to strengthen State resources for treatment and education programs. He has worked to improve the State's prescription drug monitoring system in order to curb harmful opioid prescribing and misuse.

Dr. Chen also led efforts to reduce tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol use among youth. In 2013, he and I worked to secure a $10 million grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, to expand substance abuse efforts in Vermont among young adults at risk of developing habits in alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and illicit drug use. Since his efforts, the conversation regarding youth substance abuse, especially on marijuana, has become a major public health discussion in the Vermont Statehouse and beyond. He also worked to expand nutrition education in schools and to increase awareness surrounding the importance of vaccines. For instance, 2 years ago, after the outbreak of Ebola, Dr. Chen worked with Vermont's top health facilities to strengthen defenses against the disease, while educating patients on the importance of disease prevention. He also led efforts to increase vaccinations for children in efforts to prevent the spread of disease at school.

Dr. Chen's dedication to public health promotion did not stop at the State level. In 2009, Dr. Chen testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Vermont's experience with healthcare reform and the creation of Vermont Health Connect. In 2014, he became chair of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Food Safety and Modernization Act Surveillance Working Group where he continues to strengthen foodborne illness surveillance systems across the country. He has also long served on the board of the CDC's Office of Infectious Disease, and he currently chairs the Prevention Committee of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

Vermont's national role in promoting the health and well-being of patients has made strides under the leadership of Dr. Chen. Vermonters are sorry to

see him go, but I know we can expect many more years of outstanding leadership from him. In fact, he and his wife have just been accepted to the Peace Corps, where they look forward to training physicians in Africa. I wish them both the very best in this exciting work, and I once again thank Dr. Chen for his incredible contributions to our State and beyond.